Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:NeilN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feefeefee3 (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 22 June 2013 (New message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN

Ubi CANVASSing

I note that you agreed with my edit at Thomas Blake Glover -- Ubi then canvassed a slew of people (8 to be precise - telling each they were "involved" or might be "involved") for his AN/I complaint [1] that the edit was personal harassment of him which made precious little sense if any at all. You might note the posts at that closed thread - I have no idea where Ubi gets the idea that his "sources" meet WP:RS at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree raising the matter at ANI made no sense. At least it brought more scrutiny to the article and questioning of the sources. --NeilN talk to me 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent Energy Medicine Edits

Hello,

Thank you for your reply. This concerns edits made by 76.121.150.157 All but the one edit regarding reference[24](Jonas a& Crawford) are entering discussions with other editors (which I support you joining if you feel so moved). I am new to this interface--the many types of pages and protocols governing them-- so please be slightly more explicit in general than you would with more experienced users...

the edit regarding the History section of the Energy Medicine article describes a misused citation. The first sentence of the History section contains a reference to article [24](Jonas & Crawford) that is supposed to account for it. However, there can be no mistake that no such sentiment exists in this article, having read it twice myself. Therefore, please also uphold the removal of that reference from the support of that sentence. Or, at the risk of cynicism, perhaps there is some type of committee where this type of issue gets belabored...

Thank you for your consideration, Kmpentland (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here --NeilN talk to me 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tropes vs woman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Madhav Dham

I am in charge of promotions at our Hindu Temple. Our temple is under the management of our Board of Directors. We are legally under a new name. You are inserting comments about an individual that have nothing to do with us. You are trying to damage and defame are Hindu Temple unfairly. We do not appreciate this. Please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dktaylor2013 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a bot message to me?

I added several sources in my edits to Peking University, from within Wiki articles for the most part. Did you really have to remove the entire section, or could you have marked some of it as needing more work? As it is, I only see your repeated reversions of cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksq (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 17:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False allegations and vandalism

I made an edit to Martin Narey's profile and you vandalised it without justifying your reasoning. You state my edit was 'poorly sourced' yet is was taken directly from the UK Parliament's website and based on his own words. You also removed large sections of the profile without and explanation whatsoever. How would I report you for vandalism as your actions where wholly unjustified. Please provide details for why you removed well-sourced and cited material for the page. I will add the section again and if you disagree with it then raise it in the talk section. Do not just remove and destroy pages without good reason. Be a good Wikipedian. Newuser2111 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here (removed copyright violation and editor's "reference" did not match their soapbox text). --NeilN talk to me 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Narey uses the term 'forced adoption' to describe the practice here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16157124. On page 77 of this document: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeduc/137/137ii.pdf Narey calls for the increase of such adoptions by 50% or more. Is this satisfactorily sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser2111 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. He answered this question, "It is clear that you lament the reduction in the number of adoptions and you have actually said it should be radically increased." The question did not refer to forced adoptions. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what's your source for "Martin Narey is a one of the mots staunchest and vocal defenders of the Forced adoption in the UK..."? --NeilN talk to me 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of adoption raised in the document stems from the issue of forced adoption, it is clear from reading it in it's entirety that they are discussing forced adoption. I'm sure Narey would admit that he was one of the most staunchest and vocal defenders of the policy, in fact I am sure he is very proud of that fact. You removed the section for being 'poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content'. I have provided the source for the material and there is nothing defamatory about it. The issue of forced adoption is controversial but there is no controversy about Narey's support for the policy. Suggest a rework of the section rather than complete removal. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not clear and the fact that "you are sure" does not affect what gets put in the article. You can propose a rewording on the article's talk page (with sources) and others will comment. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the section is added as follows: 'Martin Narey is a staunch and vocal defender of the UK's policy of forced adoption and has suggested that he would like to see adoptions, particularly of new-born babies, increase by 50% or more. He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse.' This is fact and is cited in the source I provided. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, per above. --NeilN talk to me 20:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are ample sources that show that Narey is a staunch and vocal supporter of the policy. I can provide multiple citations to show this. The document I linked to clearly states that he would like to see adoptions increase by '50% or more'. What point do you disagree with now? It feels like nitpicking. Suggest a constructive alternative rather than dismissing any mention of his support for the policy. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Find sources that claim he is "a staunch and vocal supporter"
  2. Reword to make it clear the 50% applies to adoptions, not forced adoptions.
  3. Page in source for "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse"?

--NeilN talk to me 21:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The fact that he is a defender of the policy is self evident. I have provided more than enough citations to support this sentence.
  2. It is clear from the wording that the 50% refers to adoptions and not forced adoptions.
  3. Reference to "He is in favour of forced adoptions of children who have not suffered any kind of neglect or abuse" removed for now.

Newuser2111 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have again maliciously edited the article despite ample sources being provided. You are promoting your own POV and have shown an unwillingness to reach a reasonable compromise on the matter. You will be reported. Newuser2111 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that as a WP:SPA your own edits will be scrutinized as well. --NeilN talk to me 21:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Day

The source is no longer affiliated with the University of Florida and is now called The Independent Florida Alligator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Florida_Alligator The source has been independent since 1971.

If this source still does not suffice, I have found another source. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120314/ARTICLES/120319769 Please let me know if I can reapply my edit. I am new to the Wiki editing process. Thank you! --Jveingrad (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bikini - external links edit

Hi - I saw you made a couple recent and proper edits to the external links for the article bikini. I don't understand how it is that extremely experienced editors know how to go make small edits to lots of different articles, but it seems like that's what you did here - which is cool. I just wanted to know if you would be willing to spend a few mins on the bikini article assessing the image selection throughout the article and provide any feedback (even if it's just a short "imo it's fine as it is")? I haven't been able to rally any other editors around the article during the past several months but think that it would be good for there to be at least one person critiquing or applauding the image choice and layout. Anyway, thanks for your time. Azx2 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Administration

Hi NeilN. I'm new. You reverted a post, i'm sure it was warranted but I'm not sure I understand why.

You recommended I use twinkle and included the link, however, after redirecting to the page and attempting to follow the directions (going to the gadgets section and enabling twinkle) twinkle wasn't availabel as an option. I'll give it another look but is there another work around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonwgreer. It looks like you're pretty confused. Have you read your talk page here. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes on all fronts. Doing some more reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwgreer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding removal of my articles

i am extremely disappointed as my edits were removed without prior notice. i agree that i should not give my inputs as as personal remarks. The matter on reliance infrastructure was fully trustable as i am very close to that company since tose facts are available on their website rinfra.com. Even my edits on reliance power was removed . Even Mr. Anil Ambani is a graduate from university of Pennsylvania. once again im very disappointed for this rude behavior. i'll deactivate my account if my queries are not solved immediately.

Aakash Singh

Replied here. --NeilN talk to me 16:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok alright i am going to deactivate my account right now . good bye and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakash Singh India (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden Infobox "disclosure" reversion

Reversion of my change … "whistleblowing" replaced with "disclosure" … is inappropriate. The Whistleblower Protection Act excludes members and organizations that are part of the intelligence community, and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act specifies that report and disclosures must go to members of Congress, and members of Congress only. Accordingly, the actions involved are, at least from a legal standpoint,the use of the term "whistleblowing" is open to dispute on the basis of law, while the use of the word "disclosure" is not disputable on any factual or legal basis. I should think that the Infobox content, in particular, ought not contain information whose veracity is debatable. My change should be restored. ~~Bruce Wheelock ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewh (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary, "whistleblowing" is a common English word and American laws or Congress do not get to decide the definition of the word on Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind picture

Please explain how [2] is a copyright violation? You are assuming that it is a copyright violation, when you have no proof.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&oldid=561104863"